Fun with the New York Times Editorial Process (Don't Push/Leave Incomplete/Old Drafts Online Edition)
Regular readers of this blog know that we're not "good" and proofreading. We sometimes push posts live before they're technically "spellchecked", let alone "proofread". And when we reread our posts or readers email us corrections, we fix our errors and repost. The same thing happens, it turns out, in the New York Times news room. Those interested in such things now have the opportunity to see how this morning's NYT article got made (our reactions to that article are here and here and here and here and here). We'll try to narrate what we think was going on as the article got processed:
Old headline: Pope Apologizes for Uproar Over His Remarks
New headline: In a Rare Step, Pope Expresses Personal Regret
Explanation: old headline didn't properly reflect NYT "Pope humiliated himself like we told him to" news frame
Old body: "His apology came amid much worry in the church about violence and any erosion of the status of the papacy as a neutral figure for peace among faiths."
New body: "His statement came amid much worry in the church about violence and any erosion of the status of the pope as a neutral figure for peace among faiths."
Explaination: we're not sure that the bloggers will let us call it an apology [triumphalist much -- ed it's been a long weekend... we're out of snark]
Old body: "Although Benedict’s predecessor, John Paul II, issued several apologies for the historical failings of the Roman Catholic Church, experts said it appeared to be the first time in recent memory that a pope had made such a direct, personal apology for his own."
New body: "Although Benedict’s predecessor, John Paul II, issued several apologies for the historical failings of the church, experts said it appeared to be the first time in recent memory that a pope had made such a direct statement of personal regret."
Explaination: see above. Also, grammar.
Old body: "Several Vatican officials said they had expressed concern before the speech was delivered that it might be negatively received by Muslims or be misconstrued by the news media as an attack on Islam."
New body: "Several Vatican officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the issue publicly, said they had expressed concern before the speech was delivered that it might be negatively received by Muslims or be misconstrued by the news media as an attack on Islam."
Explanation: editor asked "how are we going to explain why there are no sources on your quotes?"
Old body: "And for many conservatives here, fearful of terror attacks in the name of Islam and rising Muslim immigration in Europe, the remarks of the pope - despite his own denial that he meant to criticize - amounted to a rare public discussion of a delicate question: whether, in fact, Islam is at the moment especially prone to violence."
New body: "And for many conservatives here, fearful of terrorist attacks in the name of Islam and rising Muslim immigration in Europe, the remarks of the pope - despite his own denial that he meant to criticize - amounted to a rare public airing of a delicate concern many of them share: whether, in fact, Islam is at the moment especially prone to violence."
Explanation: "discussion" assumes that anyone felt safe enough to engage the question
Old body: "The officials said there was concern in the Vatican before he delivered it, both about the reaction among Muslims and how the news media would portray the passages relating to Islam."
New body: "The officials, speaking anonymously because they were not authorized to discuss this publicly, said that there was concern in the Vatican before he delivered it, both about the reaction among Muslims and how the news media would portray the passages relating to Islam. "
So let's review what we've learned: (1) the NYT really wants you to think that the Pope abased himself (2) the NYT will explain the notable absence of actual, confirmable sources for their blind quotes - blind quotes which just happen to confirm what the NYT believes - by telling you that the officials had to remain anonymous. Which wasn't a fact that they knew during the first draft of the story. All the news that's fit and so on.
Old headline: Pope Apologizes for Uproar Over His Remarks
New headline: In a Rare Step, Pope Expresses Personal Regret
Explanation: old headline didn't properly reflect NYT "Pope humiliated himself like we told him to" news frame
Old body: "His apology came amid much worry in the church about violence and any erosion of the status of the papacy as a neutral figure for peace among faiths."
New body: "His statement came amid much worry in the church about violence and any erosion of the status of the pope as a neutral figure for peace among faiths."
Explaination: we're not sure that the bloggers will let us call it an apology [triumphalist much -- ed it's been a long weekend... we're out of snark]
Old body: "Although Benedict’s predecessor, John Paul II, issued several apologies for the historical failings of the Roman Catholic Church, experts said it appeared to be the first time in recent memory that a pope had made such a direct, personal apology for his own."
New body: "Although Benedict’s predecessor, John Paul II, issued several apologies for the historical failings of the church, experts said it appeared to be the first time in recent memory that a pope had made such a direct statement of personal regret."
Explaination: see above. Also, grammar.
Old body: "Several Vatican officials said they had expressed concern before the speech was delivered that it might be negatively received by Muslims or be misconstrued by the news media as an attack on Islam."
New body: "Several Vatican officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the issue publicly, said they had expressed concern before the speech was delivered that it might be negatively received by Muslims or be misconstrued by the news media as an attack on Islam."
Explanation: editor asked "how are we going to explain why there are no sources on your quotes?"
Old body: "And for many conservatives here, fearful of terror attacks in the name of Islam and rising Muslim immigration in Europe, the remarks of the pope - despite his own denial that he meant to criticize - amounted to a rare public discussion of a delicate question: whether, in fact, Islam is at the moment especially prone to violence."
New body: "And for many conservatives here, fearful of terrorist attacks in the name of Islam and rising Muslim immigration in Europe, the remarks of the pope - despite his own denial that he meant to criticize - amounted to a rare public airing of a delicate concern many of them share: whether, in fact, Islam is at the moment especially prone to violence."
Explanation: "discussion" assumes that anyone felt safe enough to engage the question
Old body: "The officials said there was concern in the Vatican before he delivered it, both about the reaction among Muslims and how the news media would portray the passages relating to Islam."
New body: "The officials, speaking anonymously because they were not authorized to discuss this publicly, said that there was concern in the Vatican before he delivered it, both about the reaction among Muslims and how the news media would portray the passages relating to Islam. "
So let's review what we've learned: (1) the NYT really wants you to think that the Pope abased himself (2) the NYT will explain the notable absence of actual, confirmable sources for their blind quotes - blind quotes which just happen to confirm what the NYT believes - by telling you that the officials had to remain anonymous. Which wasn't a fact that they knew during the first draft of the story. All the news that's fit and so on.
